In an interesting twist, the leader of the small Dutch hardcore Christian political party copied Akin's message. So yeah, we also have the crazy anti abortion/*** marriage/women Christians here, they're just rather insignificant with having only 2/151 seats in the parliament, though as far as I'm aware the only people voting them are the strictly Christian old people and the few Jehovah's witnesses we have here.

The article also mentioned a study from 2009 that stated that 7% of women who are raped get pregnant, of those half get an abortion, a third keeps the child and the rest are miscarriages.

____________________________

Theophany wrote:YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU. someproteinguy wrote:Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist. Astarin wrote:One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.

"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin

"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin

"If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."

Admittedly, I don't know that much about Mr. Akin, but I'm going to go on a limb and assume he is a fairly intelligent guy, appears to be at least modestly successful in life, and an educated articulate guy in his 50's or 60's.

How the fuck did he make it through life living this long believing this tripe? Oh must be a result of abstinence-only education. Good god, this is information known by high school students. What a work of art.

Reap what you sow I guess.

-NW

Edited, Aug 31st 2012 8:17am by NaughtyWord

____________________________

The Pessimist: A person who looks both ways before crossing a one-way street.

#175gbaji,
Posted:Aug 31 2012 at 5:28 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) And you know what's missing here? Someone actually showing that the statement about the rarity of pregnancy from forcible rape is actually incorrect. Argue every other issue except the key point. The fact is that his statement was not technically wrong. Stupid in the context he used it in (and poorly phrased), but not wrong at all.

And you know what's missing here? Someone actually showing that the statement about the rarity of pregnancy from forcible rape is actually incorrect. Argue every other issue except the key point. The fact is that his statement was not technically wrong. Stupid in the context he used it in (and poorly phrased), but not wrong at all.

Edited, Aug 31st 2012 4:30pm by gbaji

I want to see your cite that says forcible rape rarely results in vaginal penetration.

I don't doubt that you had *** ed. I do doubt the veracity of your claim as to its content.

I know this is shocking to some, but *** education in this country used to be far more about the science and facts of reproduction and sexual behavior than it is today. The politics (on both sides) have transformed it into a collection of teachings designed to tie into a given political position on related issues and *not* to teach strong facts about the issue itself. Believe it or not, they did talk about issues like rape, incest, homosexuality, and how those things intersected with pregnancy, STDs, etc even back in grade school. I hit the whole run of *** ed twice because I attended a public grade school, and then went to a religious middle and high school. Public schools taught *** education in 5th and 6th grade back then. The religious school I attended did their first intro stuff in 7th, with the followup in 8th grade.

Couple year difference aside, the information provided was more or less identical in both schools. Yes. Complete with relatively boring films, which seemed the popular education technique of the day.

Young people today like to think they are more progressive, better informed, and more open minded than past generations, but in a lot of ways, they are more coddled, less well educated, and less well exposed to real diversity of ideas than their parents. They just don't realize it. We spend a lot more time and effort talking about how we should handle these subjects, but honestly a lot less actually doing it. This is a general observation btw, not just about *** ed. The same can be said about nearly every subject taught in our education system today. We're so concerned about exposing kids to something too early, or offending their parents, or hurting their fragile sense of self esteem, but we just don't teach them in a factual manner anymore. We no longer expect responsibility from students, so we don't teach them as though they can be responsible enough to handle the lessons. We coddle them and protect them from education. And then we wonder why they don't have a freaking clue how the world works after they graduate.

I don't doubt that you had *** ed. I do doubt the veracity of your claim as to its content.

I know this is shocking to some, but *** education in this country used to be far more about the science and facts of reproduction and sexual behavior than it is today. The politics (on both sides) have transformed it into a collection of teachings designed to tie into a given political position on related issues and *not* to teach strong facts about the issue itself. Believe it or not, they did talk about issues like rape, incest, homosexuality, and how those things intersected with pregnancy, STDs, etc even back in grade school. I hit the whole run of *** ed twice because I attended a public grade school, and then went to a religious middle and high school. Public schools taught *** education in 5th and 6th grade back then. The religious school I attended did their first intro stuff in 7th, with the followup in 8th grade.

Couple year difference aside, the information provided was more or less identical in both schools. Yes. Complete with relatively boring films, which seemed the popular education technique of the day.

Young people today like to think they are more progressive, better informed, and more open minded than past generations, but in a lot of ways, they are more coddled, less well educated, and less well exposed to real diversity of ideas than their parents. They just don't realize it. We spend a lot more time and effort talking about how we should handle these subjects, but honestly a lot less actually doing it. This is a general observation btw, not just about *** ed. The same can be said about nearly every subject taught in our education system today. We're so concerned about exposing kids to something too early, or offending their parents, or hurting their fragile sense of self esteem, but we just don't teach them in a factual manner anymore. We no longer expect responsibility from students, so we don't teach them as though they can be responsible enough to handle the lessons. We coddle them and protect them from education. And then we wonder why they don't have a freaking clue how the world works after they graduate.

What sort of non-biased, science-based information do you think we should be teaching our children in schools?

#181gbaji,
Posted:Aug 31 2012 at 6:02 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) By the *****? Sufficient for ejaculation to occur with any chance at all of a pregnancy resulting? Do I really need to do this? Or can we apply a little common sense here?

The national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45); among adult women an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year. Among 34 cases of rape-related pregnancy, the majority occurred among adolescents and resulted from assault by a known, often related perpetrator. Only 11.7% of these victims received immediate medical attention after the assault, and 47.1% received no medical attention related to the rape. A total 32.4% of these victims did not discover they were pregnant until they had already entered the second trimester; 32.2% opted to keep the infant whereas 50% underwent abortion and 5.9% placed the infant for adoption; an additional 11.8% had spontaneous abortion.

5% of rape victims become pregnant. Of those 11.7% required immediate medical treatment. Even if we get really ******* conservative and assume that ONLY those 11.7% were forcible rape (which you know is a load of ********** that's still 3,756 pregnancies per year. Even then, that's significant, and not at all rare, but let's look at the numbers again. 11.7% required immediate medical attention, while 47% required no medical attention at all. That means 53% did require medical attention at some point. If we assume even just half of that number is due to forcible rape cases, then we're looking at 26%, or 8,346 pregnancies due to forcible rape per year.

Also might help to not quote a pretty questionable study on the issue. Not your fault though, those numbers are widely reported. Anyone who steps back and looks at the statistics of human reproduction should instantly realize that either this study was horribly flawed, or the reported statistics were measured differently than most think they were.

I'll give you a hint: Go look up the normal rate of impregnation among fertile couples actually trying to conceive if they have *** one time at a random point during a woman's cycle. Then ask where the **** the 5% number comes from. In real science, you should always check your results to ensure they make a **** bit of sense.

And you know what's missing here? Someone actually showing that the statement about the rarity of pregnancy from forcible rape is actually incorrect. Argue every other issue except the key point. The fact is that his statement was not technically wrong. Stupid in the context he used it in (and poorly phrased), but not wrong at all.

Edited, Aug 31st 2012 4:30pm by gbaji

I want to see your cite that says forcible rape rarely results in vaginal penetration.

"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin

And you know what's missing here? Someone actually showing that the statement about the rarity of pregnancy from forcible rape is actually incorrect. Argue every other issue except the key point. The fact is that his statement was not technically wrong. Stupid in the context he used it in (and poorly phrased), but not wrong at all.

Edited, Aug 31st 2012 4:30pm by gbaji

I want to see your cite that says forcible rape rarely results in vaginal penetration.

Do I really need to do this?

Yeah for once let's see a cite.

I'll repeat again (for the common sense impaired):

gbaji wrote:

By the *****? Sufficient for ejaculation to occur with any chance at all of a pregnancy resulting? Do I really need to do this? Or can we apply a little common sense here?

When compared to the entire spectrum of what is called "rape", that represents an incredibly small portion. Does it really require a whole lot of brain power to realize that if the total quoted rate of pregnancy for the whole group is X, and that group includes a whole lot of 15 year olds having *** (repeatedly over a period of time btw, which for those following along is why the stats are so skewed) with their adult boyfriends, that the actual rate for forcible rape is going to be significantly lower than that. Same deal with non-forcible date rape, which usually involves multiple instances of sexual intercourse over a period of time.

When you distill that down into a "percentage of women impregnated by their rapists", you're going to end out with a **** of a lot higher percentage when you include those other two groups. Sometimes, just looking at the cases themselves can tell you how the distribution is going to end out. This is one of those cases.

Let me be absolutely clear. I'm not saying that this doesn't happen. I fully acknowledge that the odds are greater than zero, and thus the argument as a whole was stupid. However, the statement that pregnancy resulting from forcible rape is relatively rare is absolutely true. Compared to other forms of rape, it's true. Compared to sexual activity in general, it's true. I do find it amusing that for some people, the need to attack anything said that even remotely appears to question some political agenda they agree with is so strong. It's almost Pavlovian. Heaven forbid anyone mention that you're less likely to get pregnant from a forcible rape than having consensual *** with your boy friend. Doesn't matter that it's quite obviously true, it's language that might just slightly weaken some contrived connections between social issues we like to use, so make sure to attack that person right away!!!

Only 11.7% of these victims received immediate medical attention after the assault, and 47.1% received no medical attention related to the rape. A total 32.4% of these victims did not discover they were pregnant until they had already entered the second trimester; 32.2% opted to keep the infant whereas 50% underwent abortion and 5.9% placed the infant for adoption; an additional 11.8% had spontaneous abortion.

If we follow the earlier assumption that the 11.7% are those who suffered forcible rapes (which would presumably *all* involve immediate medical attention), then clearly forcible rapes *do* result in spontaneous abortion. He's right! Why did we ever doubt him? Oh... The humanity.

By the *****? Sufficient for ejaculation to occur with any chance at all of a pregnancy resulting? Do I really need to do this? Or can we apply a little common sense here?

When compared to the entire spectrum of what is called "rape", that represents an incredibly small portion. Does it really require a whole lot of brain power to realize that if the total quoted rate of pregnancy for the whole group is X, and that group includes a whole lot of 15 year olds having *** (repeatedly over a period of time btw, which for those following along is why the stats are so skewed) with their adult boyfriends, that the actual rate for forcible rape is going to be significantly lower than that. Same deal with non-forcible date rape, which usually involves multiple instances of sexual intercourse over a period of time.

When you distill that down into a "percentage of women impregnated by their rapists", you're going to end out with a **** of a lot higher percentage when you include those other two groups. Sometimes, just looking at the cases themselves can tell you how the distribution is going to end out. This is one of those cases.

Let me be absolutely clear. I'm not saying that this doesn't happen. I fully acknowledge that the odds are greater than zero, and thus the argument as a whole was stupid. However, the statement that pregnancy resulting from forcible rape is relatively rare is absolutely true. Compared to other forms of rape, it's true. Compared to sexual activity in general, it's true. I do find it amusing that for some people, the need to attack anything said that even remotely appears to question some political agenda they agree with is so strong. It's almost Pavlovian. Heaven forbid anyone mention that you're less likely to get pregnant from a forcible rape than having consensual *** with your boy friend. Doesn't matter that it's quite obviously true, it's language that might just slightly weaken some contrived connections between social issues we like to use, so make sure to attack that person right away!!!

I just find the whole thing to be dumb.

For someone who claims others lack common sense you sure have a funny way of citing a reference. I will give you a tip, it involves quoting people that don't exist in your head and showing links to their work. Otherwise good work! Glad to see you have an ability to consistently type walls of text without actually saying a dang thing.

Of course it is. I am still holding out for the day that Gbaji will make a good devils advocate and at least bring some solid evidence to back up some of his claims. Instead of the usual essay long posts with about as much substance as a eighth graders English assignment on what they did during the summer.

“If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut the whole thing down.”

That is factually & scientifically incorrect information & he believes that, most likely, because of rhetoric.

____________________________

"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin

The national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45); among adult women an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year.

I had a lot more to say, but really, it makes me feel ill to try and argue with you about this. The damage to adopted children the majority of whom wonder over and over "Why didn't my mother want me?" even when their adoptive parents are full of love and care. The damage to children and adults who get traumatised when they find out they were the product of rape, whether or not their mothers kept them. The damage to women who can't bear the thought of carrying and creating a child from the man who violated, victimised and traumatised her. If teens are more likely than adult women to be made pregnant from rape it's probably because they haven't had the chance to be on birth control pills. And they are more likely to be the rape victims of their fathers, brothers, uncles or other relatives. WTF makes you think it's acceptable at all to force a child to be completed who will almost invariably be damaged for life because of the manner of their conception?

You aren't saving a life when you save a rape foetus. You are creating a damaged human being who otherwise would have had no idea what it was missing out on, good AND bad.

@#%^ you you sick piece of sh*t.

Yes, I really admire the woman who can separate out the feelings she has for her attacker from the feelings she has for her foetus and child. Hopefully that strength and grace fills the child's childhood and she will be a great parent. Unfortunately in my case, my raped mother was so stressed and traumatised, she made a lousy mother. Too bad I reminded her so much of him.

You mean especially allowing raped women to abort their unwanted child is dumb because it's such a rare occurrence? Yeah, it would be stupid to make an whole exemption to a big-brother law just because the women claims the guy forced his **** into her.